Without Thee, I Cannot Live: A Theology of Nominating Committees

Today I was praying for the Nominating Committee of our local association of Baptist churches and a thought or two came my way.  Do you know what a "nominating committee" is?  Basically they are the group in an organization responsible for getting other people to agree to fill voluntary positions and offices.  It's a rather thankless task to be sure.  On another level, however -- on a more spiritual level -- there is something else going on.  Something that I think we do well to ponder.

There is under-girding and thus birthing and sustaining the existence of such a thing as "nominating committees" in Christian circles a truth so central to our lives that it seems all other truths may just hang on it like ornaments on a tree.  It isn't the same thing which gives rise to "nominating committees" outside the Church (or at least it shouldn't be).  Outside it is this, "There are jobs which must be done and positions which must be filled; we need a group whose sole purpose is to berate, guilt, or sucker people into filling those posts."  No! In the Church it is another thing:

"Without Thee, I cannot live!"

Say again?

Consider:

"'Without Thee, I cannot live!' Whatever our small practice, belief, or experience may be, nothing can alter the plain fact that God, the Spirit of spirits, the Life-giving Life, has made or rather is making each person reading these words for Himself; and that our lives will not achieve stability until they are ruled by that truth." (E. Underhill)

Can the follower of Jesus doubt this? Without God, we are hopelessly lost are we not?  Is not our complete and utter dependence upon Him perhaps the uppermost reality governing our lives?

Sure, but what has that to do with "nominating committees"?

Well, only the truly loyal readers have made it this far in a post about "nominating committees" (which is really about God), so let me reward you with a parable:

A little girl goes to school.  Her lunchbox in hand having been lovingly prepared by her attentive and thoughtful mother.  At lunchtime, the girl devours the peanut butter and jelly sandwich, small bag of Cheetos, pickle spear, oatmeal cookie and juice box.  The banana, however, gets tossed into the garbage.  Same as always.  The girl isn't a fruit lover.

And this is a picture of us.  Saying we need God; saying in a voice of triumphant piety, "Without Thee, I cannot live!" Then proceeding to open the lunchbox of what God has prepared.  We pick through and consume what we desire and chuck the rest. We never stop to consider the far greater wisdom of a Parent who has prepared these things (all these things) for us.

So . . . "nominating committees"?

Ah, yes.  Here we are. Well, what exactly has God prepared for us?


1Co 12:7-19 ESV  To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.  For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit,  to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit,  to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues.  All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills . . . .  For the body does not consist of one member but of many.  If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," that would not make it any less a part of the body.  And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," that would not make it any less a part of the body.  If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell?  But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose.  If all were a single member, where would the body be?

And also . . . 

Eph 4:4-7 ESV  There is one body and one Spirit--just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call--  one Lord, one faith, one baptism,  one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.  But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ's gift.

God has provided a Body.  The Church. And my point is simple (though I've certainly taken the scenic route to get here).  When we presume that we do not need the Body, when we arrogantly cut ourselves off from noses or fingers or kidneys,  when we foolishly set out to conquer the world as solitary ears or hair follicles or even as a covenanted coalition of knuckles,  then we (to brazenly mix metaphors) are chucking items from the lunchbox carefully and lovingly prepared by our Parent, the Father.  We may say "'Tis but a speckled banana," or (switching back) "merely an ear lobe" but in the act of chucking we are not simply saying, "I don't need bannanas or ear lobes or church planters or Christians who care about the homeless or ESL teachers or "black" churches or "white" churches or Pentecostals or Calvinists or __________ -- No, we are saying something far different. Something much more serious.  We are saying, "Without Thee, I will be just fine!" For when we reject what He, in infinite wisdom and love, has prepared, we reject Him.  But really, we are dead without Him. As a friend of mine is fond of saying, "Without Him, we cannot move an inch!"

So it is upon this foundational truth that all great Christian "nominating committees" through the ions of salvation history have been built.  Or, at least, should be.  Why? Because it is the noble task of the "nominating committee" to say to the Church (or to their little corner of it anyway),

"Everyone, this is Sam. He's a deacon down at XYZ Church. God has given him such and such gifts and experiences.  You need him and Sam needs you, and we'll all be richer, fuller, healthier and happier with him in the lunchbox."

Over and out.

Voddie Baucham on T.D. Jakes & the Elephant Room Controversy

I've had great respect for Voddie Baucham for a long time now and greatly appreciate his perspective on the "Elephant Room 2" controversy. Of course, since I'm kind of a nobody, no one is really asking me to weigh in. However, I believe that those of you in my audience need to be aware of the situation. The doctrine of the Trinity is, without question, the central doctrine of the Christian faith. Everything else hangs on it. ER2 appears to suggest that we can afford to compromise or even "agree to disagree" in this area in the name of unity. As my readers know, unity and a greater missional collaboration in the body of Christ is one of my central calls to the Church. But, not at any cost. I believe strongly that the oneness of the Church is an essential Christian doctrine. However, it hangs on the doctrine of the Trinity. We must have our priorities straight.

So, I commend to you Voddie Baucham's recent post related to his own experience with the Elephant Room crew. I believe you will find it interesting and challenging. He has done an excellent job of getting at the issue and explaining graciously why he chose not to participate in ER2.

Blog | Grace Family Baptist Church: "This past week a firestorm erupted over the recent “Elephant Room 2.” The controversy centers around the decision to invite Bishop T.D. Jakes to participate in the event. The central questions in the debate are 1) whether or not Bishop Jakes holds to the historic, orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, 2) whether it was appropriate to invite (and feature) him without first having clarified his position on this cardinal doctrine, and 3) whether he cleared up the matter. I was scheduled to speak at Harvest Bible Chapel on the weekend following ER2 which raised significant questions about my stance on the matter. While I do not consider it my responsibility to comment on every controversy, I do recognize my duty to clarify matters with which I am involved directly, and/or those that impact the congregation I am called to shepherd. Hence, my explanation now.

Building Bridges: Perspectives on Baptist Unity (Reviewed)

WARNING: If you are not a Southern Baptist, you might find the following very uninteresting.

Here from the seclusion of my secret personal retreat getaway, I was able to polish off the little book by David Dockery and Timothy George on Southern Baptist unity.  The book is entitled Building Bridges: Perspectives on Baptist Unity [link is to free e-book version!] and weighs in at a mere 64 pages.  In short, let me say that I found the book to be powerful, insightful, and the kind of thing that I hope and pray is embraced broadly throughout my denomination.

Why did I read this book?

Baptist Faith & Message

Ordinarily, many of you know that I spend my energies writing about missiology, contextualization, Hinduism, diaspora and the like.  So, you may be surprised to find me reading a book about Southern Baptist identity.  However, these days I find myself with more and more of a voice among my denominational brothers and sisters.  I train and supervise new SBC church planters; I help to lead one of the largest local Baptist associations in the country; and I pastor two Southern Baptist churches.  Very recently, I've also been invited to serve as a part of a new Southern Baptist North American Mission Board project called "Send Chicago".  Send Chicago consists of a coalition of about 18 missionaries, pastors, and other leaders who are tasked with seeking to develop strategies for church planting in Chicagoland.  I've been to a couple meetings thus far.  Actually, it was the most recent one that stirred in me a desire to read Building Bridges.

What does it mean to be Southern Baptist in Chicagoland?

During our most recent coalition gathering -- the first official one -- the question was asked, "What does it mean to be a Southern Baptist church in Chicago?"  After a bit of discussion, there was a followup question, "What makes Southern Baptists different from other Evangelicals in Chicago?"  This second question was immediately met with an answer from a member of the group that just about made me fall out of my chair, "We preach the word of God!" Astonished, I wondered if as a group we were actually suggesting that only Southern Baptists were preaching the word of God.

My contribution to the ensuing conversation was a challenge that we not make "planting Southern Baptist churches" the end for which we labor in mission.  Rather that we make our focus extending God's Kingdom, reaching people who don't know Christ -- you know, that which Christ actually calls his people to do.  We will plant SBC churches as a means to that end.  I shared with the group that it wasn't the building of our denomination that got me out of bed in the morning, but the building of Christ's Kingdom.

Well, I certainly didn't have the last word and the rest of the conversation around the room on the topic was anything but decisive.  We have much work to do -- that we must do.  Theological, missiological, racial, economic, political, historic, traditional, and ideological elephants abound, stomping around the room, begging to be talked about.  And the question that rang out in all of the discussion that day, that spontaneously emerged from the rather chaotic proceedings and then sort of lingered there was this, "Why are you Southern Baptist?"

For me, the answer comes very quickly from my heart.  It is a family thing.  Not that my biological family was Southern Baptist.  No, but I came to know Christ in the Southern Baptist context in Oklahoma.  Michelle, Jon, Becky, Boyd, Dan, Jim and many others who established, brought me up and mentored me in the faith were all Southern Baptists.  I was baptized, licensed, and ordained and sent out as a missionary by Southern Baptists. And, I should say, I love standing in the tradition of Lottie Moon.  So, it is my heritage and my family.  We live in a culture of leavers and I have been encouraged to jump ship many times over the years. But in spite of the many, many problems I see in our huge denominational family, I just don't believe that leaving is right, helpful, or godly.  I believe we must "test all things" and "hold on to what is good" (1 Thess. 5:21) and try our darnedest to fix the rest!

But, still, what does it mean that I am a Southern Baptist?  Are there reasons besides loyalty to a family and heritage that keep me Baptist?  The answer is yes, but I don't want to spend any real time on that today.  Instead, I want to point especially my Baptist readers to the book Building Bridges.  I commend it to you and believe that God would have the SBC embrace the message therein.  The call that Dockery and George have made is to renewal rooted in a "retrieval" of our historic roots as Baptists, as Protestants, and as Christians.  They call for a renewed Baptist unity (in-house) as well as a "candid ecumenism" of conviction in the service of unity in the universal Church for the sake of world evangelization.  Two quick quotes are due here.  First, regarding Baptist unity:

"We must recognize that Southern Baptists have historically reflected considerable diversity.  While we do not hold out doctrinal uniformity as a goal, we do call for renewed commitments to the inspiration, truthfulness, and authority of Scripture with an accompanying commitment to a hermeneutic of acceptance over against a hermeneutic of suspicion, as well as a re-establishment and reaffirmation of the Gospel center" (p. 33).


Regarding ecumenism:

"A model of dynamic orthodoxy must be reclaimed.  The orthodox tradition must be recovered in conversation with Nicea, Chalcedon, Augustine, Bernard, Luther, Calvin, Wesley, the Pietists, and the revivalists. In sum, our Southern Baptist identity must be rooted in the consensus fidei of the Christian Church . . . . We must take seriously the biblical call to unity in accord with the Nicene affirmation of the oneness and universality of the Church" (p. 33).


If you are a Baptist with an identity crisis, read this book.  It will help you.  If you are being bugged by Baptist elements that think you just aren't Baptist enough, read this and memorize some of its pithier quotes.  I think it is just right on at so many points.  For the record, there is good mention of issues related to the "Conservative Resurgence" and Calvinist v. Arminian disputes.  When you finish the book, you should feel that the conversation has just begun however.  Much more needs to be discussed.  The issue of race was barely touched.  Gender isn't really mentioned.  Sticky subjects like alcohol use, church polity, and "speaking in tongues" were not specifically referenced.  Again, we have much more work to do, but I am thrilled that Dockery and George have boldly and insightfully gotten the ball rolling.

[P.S. - Actually, I noticed that this book came out in 2007.  However, free copies of it were distributed at the most recent associational meeting of Chicago Metro Baptist Association.  That was the first time I saw it.  I'm happy to do what I can to give the worthy title a little more attention.]

5 Challenges for the Illinois Baptist State Association: #2 Giftedness

Sorry that I've kind of dropped the ball on posting on this topic. I had fully expected to have more time than I did during last week's travels. Anyway, let me get right back into it.

What I'm doing here is a series of posts that originate from a message I shared at the Illinois Baptist State Association last month to a number of the missionary leaders.  I'm sharing with you my 5 challenges to IBSA (our state-level association of Southern Baptists) that I believe represent something of what God is saying to us, especially in the wake of Cape Town 2010 -- the 3rd Lausanne Congress on World Evangelization.  You can read challenge one here.  Now let's move on to the second:

2. Illinois Baptist State Association must create (in our individual minds, hearts and in our corporate ministry structures - including reporting systems, evaluation methods and more) new categorizations of value that transcend the smallness of finances, formal education, technology, and "measurable" results.

When I was at Cape Town 2010, I had the privilege of eating dinner one night with Ruth Ndaruhutse of Rwanda. Here's the story:

In the midst of my first full day at CT2010, I was wandering around the convention center looking for a place to eat my dinner. To be completely honest, it felt a bit like high school. I—young, relatively unknown, naturally shy, and easily intimidated—scanned a giant ballroom packed with Lausanne delegates. My eyes landed on a half-full table of Nigerians and one Rwandan, Ruth Ndaruhutse. I timidly took one of the empty seats at the table as Ruth was getting ready to leave. We exchanged a few pleasantries and then, to my delight, she settled back into her chair. Ruth sighed in a kind, motherly sort of way and began to tell me her story.

Ruth Ndaruhutse is Rwanda’s national coordinator for the Pan-African Christian Women Alliance. In the capital city of Kigali, she spends her days ministering to women who have been victimized in various ways by the genocidal massacre of 1994. She and her team take care of widows, orphans, rape victims, and others and teach skills that empower them to earn a living. She teaches them about forgiveness and reconciliation. She teaches them about Christ. In other words, she incarnates the Savior in a truly remarkable way.

Over dinner, Ruth took her time with me. Imparting to me what I’m certain was only a shred of her spiritual giftedness. She had persevered right on through the unspeakable tragedies of her country. She told me about the losses and the pain—unimaginable stories or cruelty and evil. I had to ask, ‘How, sister? How do you do it? How do you forgive?’ She replied with profound simplicity, ‘You cannot grieve for 15 years. You cannot stay in the past. You have to hope for the future —so, it’s like that. It’s like that.’

Ruth and so many others have helped me to see that one of the great lessons of Lausanne III is that, as taught in Ephesians, the Spirit of God has distributed the gifts of grace to each Christian in the whole Body of Christ (Eph. 4:7). Consequently, one of the keys to the pursuit of equilibrium in the Church is to recognize this global giftedness and our tremendous individual need of it. This requires the creation in our minds and hearts of new categorizations of value that transcend the smallness of finances, formal education, and technology. Fung challenged Christians to:

Think beyond just money terms. God’s resources are more than money. In the global family, as the body of Jesus Christ, many of us will bring different gifts. Some will bring and model faithfulness in the context of suffering; and some will model perseverance in the context of poverty and injustice; and some will model godly leadership in their context; and some will model critical theological and missiological reflection beyond the Western paradigm; and some will bring years of experience of commending the Lord Jesus Christ in the context of another world religion. And all of us will contribute together and we will bring a fuller understanding of what it means to be the whole Church bringing the whole Gospel to the whole world.[i]

The Cape Town Commitment states:

We urgently seek a new global partnership rooted in profound mutual love, mutual submission, and dramatic economic sharing without paternalism or unhealthy dependency within the Body of Christ across all continents. And we seek this not only as a demonstration of our unity in the gospel, but also for the sake of the name of Christ and the mission of God in all the world.[ii]

So this is the view of global equilibrium in the Church from the perspective of CT2010. It is a view that recognizes both the corporate richness of the body of Jesus Christ and the poverty of isolation. In it, there is no room for the participation in God’s mission of a fragmented and fighting Church—‘a divided Church has no message for a divided world’.[iii] We must humble ourselves to the reality of giftedness in Christian brothers and sisters that we did not expect to be rich by developing a more biblical understanding of what is valuable and by acknowledging our own personal poverty. And we must do this all for the sake of the gospel and Christ, our only center.

In IBSA, we must find practical ways to recognize, value, and utilize the diversity of gifts that exist throughout the body of Jesus Christ.  IBSA must recognize that we need people like Ruth. We must know that we are rich when she comes to the table and poor when she does not.

How do our current attitudes and structures in IBSA blind us to certain kinds of giftedness?  What do our current structures say about what we value? How can we change so as to not be cut off from so much of God's richness?

---

[i] Fung, ‘Partnership’.

[ii] The Lausanne Movement, ‘The Cape Town Commitment’.

[iii] The Lausanne Movement, ‘The Cape Town Commitment’.

5 Challenges for the Illinois Baptist State Association: Introduction

Been putting this off for too long.  Last month, I had the honor of speaking at the weekly chapel service of the Illinois Baptist State Association (IBSA).  This is a small gathering of prayer, worship, and Bible study that the Springfield-based missionaries of the Southern Baptist Convention enjoy.  I was asked especially to share with IBSA from my experience representing them at Cape Town 2010, the 3rd Lausanne Congress on World Evangelization.

My goal in sharing was to seek to bring to these IBSA leaders what I felt that God was saying to our part of the Church.  In the end, I felt led to bring a series of 5 challenges to IBSA.  Though I felt somewhat intimidated in front of these leaders -- all sort of "outranking" me in our denominational structure -- I felt it was important to share with confidence and to avoid any hesitations.  This is, I believe, what God's Spirit is saying to us.  These are His challenges to us.

The feedback was very positive and I left deeply encouraged.  There was even something of an encore and plenty of fruitful conversations that followed.  Now that it has been a few weeks, I want to post these challenges publicly.  If you are a follower of Christ involved with the life of IBSA, you will be especially interested in my posts during the next few days, as I plan to simply post the 5 challenges as 5 posts over the next 5 days.  If you are not involved in IBSA, you may still be interested to know what our small segment of Southern Baptist brothers and sisters in Christ are talking about.  It is actually quite relevant to you as well.

Today, let me just close my post by directing you to a scripture that I brought before the IBSA last month as our launching pad.  It comes from 2 Corinthians 9:8--

"And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that having all sufficiency in all things at all times, you may abound in every good work."

Of course, I presented this text in the wider context of chapters 8-9.  I would encourage you to reflect on these two chapters and consider how Paul speaks about the purpose of God for want and plenty in the Body of Christ.  Especially read 8:10ff.  Paul assumes association and collaboration in the body of Christ.  Paul believes that the plenty of the Corinthian Christians is designed by God for the sake of meeting the needs of Jerusalem Christians -- and vice versa.  His assumption is clear:

God has designed and decreed want and plenty in the body of Christ to demonstrate to us all, in an utterly convincing way, that there is one Body and that no single part of it has all the gifts necessary for advancing the gospel and finishing the Great Commission.  That is, if we want to be in the will of God, collaborative mission and kingdom partnership are non-negotiable.

Indeed, God is able to make all grace abound to us, so that having all sufficiency in all things at all times, we may abound in every good work.  But if that's not our experience, if instead we see only need, lack, inability to carry on the work of our mission for a lack of human, financial, or other resources what does this indicate?

The experience of perpetual want in our mission seems to point to a kind of disconnect between us and the body of Christ.  God's primary means of meeting our needs is through the Church.  But if our view of the Church is too small, narrow, weak, flimsy, or whatever -- well, we should not be surprised by our enduring neediness.  It isn't that God hasn't made provision.  It is that we are able or willing to connect with His means -- the body of Christ.

That's enough for now.  I would guess that most will not have read this far anyway.  But do take a look at the blog during the next 5 days.  I want to present 5 challenges to IBSA that flow out of the principle that I've just elucidated.  

Campus Ministries Sign Agreement - News - InterVarsity.org

A great start . . .

Campus Ministries Sign Agreement - News - InterVarsity.org

Is Heuertz's "New Ecumenism" Sufficiently Christocentric?

I've just finished reading an article by Chris Heuertz called "The New Ecumenism: Becoming the Living Body of Christ."  Chris is one of a growing number of self-proclaimed Evangelicals I know who are more or less championing a kind of ecumenical spirit. I'm doing my best to listen to them and understand what they are saying, but I'm still struggling. I'm not fully on board at this point.

In Chris's article he speaks mostly about traditional divisions between Catholics and Protestants. He shares some personal experiences within his family and ministry and how working through and joining together with each other, they've been able to move closer to Christ as the center. But I have a few honest questions:

1. Chris speaks rather negatively about "doctrinal lines" as if to suggest that none should exist. He describes this as an essentially evangelical effort to determine "who's in and who's out." I want to agree to a point that the demand for absolute theological conformity has often been taken to ridiculous and sinful extremes. But is Chris suggesting that no lines be drawn at all? Perhaps such talk appears safe enough when speaking of Protestant/Catholic relationships, but what about Mormans, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Oneness Pentecostals? Is Chris suggesting that we throw the flood gates open for any and all who call themselves Christians? And if not, on what basis would he exclude some and include others?

2. Chris shared that the incorporation of some Catholics into his ministry resulted in a strengthening of it. I don't want to challenge that; however, he continues to say, "The only hurdle we really experienced was at the communion table. Other than that, community carried on . . ." I find this a troubling statement to simply breeze by. The indication I get is that the incorporation of Catholics and Protestants together in a mission agency resulted in conflict around one of the central aspects of worship -- Communion. I wish Chris would have elaborated on this. I'm not sure how a group of people could be said to be experiencing truly Christian community without taking the Lord's Supper together.

3. Why does Chris label the "tendency to reject other traditions" as a Protestant one? Weren't Wycliffe, Huss, and Luther excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church rather against their will? Aren't Catholic and Orthodox leaders every bit as dogmatic and "divisive" as Protestants?

4. In speaking about the idea of moving towards theological unity, Chris asserts that reductionism is bad, but I'm not convinced that he doesn't go on to do just that. For example, he writes, "We can all agree that God doesn't want children's sexuality exploited and commodified in the commercial sex industry. Discovering theological unity in that tragic space is easy. So we stay in those obvious places and inch our way closer to one another based on what else we can agree on." But Chris doesn't do anything to explain what makes such an issue an "obvious place" theologically. What makes this "easy" and another issue difficult? Is it simply deemed easy on the basis of a kind of straw poll among self-proclaimed Christians? I understand the practical draw to such thinking, but I'm unaware of any Biblical justification for it. And then what happens when a professing Christian suggests that he/she doesn't exactly agree with this "obvious statement"? It may seem far-fetched, but we're having to deal with something very near to that right now. What does Chris's ecumenism do with such a person? If the answer is to throw them out, upon what basis? If its only a matter of majority view, then we're no better off than when we started.

So, I'm left at the end of Chris's article feeling that he simply hasn't provided a sufficient Christocentrism to build a real Christian unity. To simply say that Christ must be the center doesn't mean that He really is. For it means something to be a follower of Christ. It has doctrinal and theological ramifications as well as necessary practical and missional commitments.  I don't claim to know for sure what those are but sincerely believe that the Lausanne Covenant goes a long way in capturing these.  Anyway, my mind is not at all closed to the pursuit of ecumenical unity and I deeply appreciate the heart behind what Christ has shared, but I'm just not convinced that he has done enough to really show us the way forward.

Thoughts?

Was Cape Town 2010 scripted by the West?

Recently, Tim Stafford posted an article on his blog entitled "Blind Spot." This seems to be a follow up from his Christianity Today article "Teeming Diversity" which provides a kind of post-Cape Town 2010 review.  I appreciate what Tim is trying to do in both offerings, but I have been very concerned generally by the kind of criticisms and complaints that have been coming out of the congress.

To be clear, I'm not trying to respond to or argue with Tim here as much as I'm seeking to respond more generally to the spirit of criticism voiced by some who have tried to suggest that the program of Cape Town 2010 was essentially a Western production that non-Westerners were invited to participate in.  I've heard some suggest that while African, Asian, and Latin American faces were on the stage, Americans where calling the shots, writing the script.  I'm disturbed by this kind of talk because my feeling is that in the midst of it, we're missing something huge -- Jesus.

I've already written on this before in my article "Top 3 Complaints about Cape Town 2010".  So, I refer you there.  But today, I feel compelled to post this article because I found an important comment by none other than Doug Birdsall tucked away in the comment section of Stafford's CT article.  Doug, of course, is the chairman of the Lausanne Movement.  I believe his response is compelling and important.  Writes Doug:

"It is a stretch to suggest that the program was planned by westerners and and then sent to the rest of the world. The program chair was Ramez Atallah of Cairo, Egypt. The program director was Grace Mathews from India. The twelve International Deputy Directors from the twelve regions of the world were involved at every stage, including hosting of 20 pre-congress consultations. The program represented the consensus of hundreds of leaders from around the world. A group of leaders from across Africa met annually in Cape Town for the last three years under the Chairmanship of the Anglican Archbishop of Uganda, Rev. Dr. Henry Orombi to ensure that the program was global in scope and also African in nuance. Two thirds of the speakers were from Africa, Latin America and Asia. They shaped the program. The leaders of the worship team were from South Africa and from Jamaica. It is a slight to these global leaders to overlook their rich contribution and suggest it was planned by the west."


Perhaps more on this later. For now I leave it at this.  May the Lord grant us to worry less about such controversies and more about Christ and His Kingdom.

My Top 3 Complaints About Cape Town 2010

Okay ladies and gentlemen, it's time to take the gloves off.

Really, I've been too nice and cuddly regarding Cape Town 2010, the historic 3rd Lausanne Congress. Even before the congress had begun, during the event itself, and certainly since it closed, I've been hearing a number of criticisms and complaints from delegates and observers.  Why, just yesterday, I sat for a while with a friend and heard him relay complaints that he had heard from others.  Well, so as not to be outdone, I've decided to join the fray.  No more warm and fuzzy.  Here it is, my top 3 biggest complaints about Cape Town 2010:

3. Advocating our causes by diminishing others

I have noticed (not only at Cape Town, but it stood out to me there) that there is a dangerous tendency that we missionary-types have.  That is, we have a tendency to speak about our particular callings and passions as if they were the only legitimate ones out there.  That is, someone who is passionate about the urban poor tends to diminish those working in rural Tibet.  The ministry focused on Muslims speaks as if those trying to reach Hindus are somehow less spiritual.  The person with a ministry dedicated to combating human trafficking can't understand those who are passionate about church planting.  And so on.  I will refrain from giving specific examples, but they were numerous.  May the Lord rescue us from thinking that every part of the body of Christ needs to be just like us - "if the whole body were a cross-cultural church planter working contextually among Hindus in diaspora, where would the body be?" (1 Cor. 12:19)

2. Lack of integrity regarding the Lausanne Covenant

Well, I hate to say this folks, but unfortunately, I saw evidence of a serious lack of integrity regarding the Lausanne Covenant at Cape Town 2010.  Now, I find this to be particularly serious because many of us who are in the trenches (some far more so than myself) came to this gathering hoping for two things (among others).  First, we were hoping for the great diversity of the global body of Christ to be represented.  But second, we were hoping that those who did come would share the core convictions of the faith as expressed by the Lausanne Covenant we were all required to affirm.  This unity around essentials and diversity in a wide range of other issues was to help create an atmosphere of unity in diversity, one fertile for collaboration.  Unfortunately, while I assume that every delegate indicated in the application process that they did indeed agree with the Lausanne Covenant, the reality was that some did not.

At the end of the day, I don't know the number.  However, I can see them falling into two major categories.  The first are those who signed the Lausanne Covenant and seem to essentially believe the statements therein, but nevertheless do not necessarily believe that an individual who likewise does so is actually a Christian.  That is, there is a failure to distinguish properly between essentials and non-essentials of the faith.  Members of one delegation in particular expressed this in their words and behaviors towards me.  One individual actually accused me of leading a cult.  When asked if they could acknowledge that since we have both signed the Lausanne Covenant, we actually share the same core and essential theological convictions and, upon that basis, may treat one another as brothers and sisters in Christ, some were unwilling.  I find this extremely sad.

The second category is much worse.  These are those individuals who signed the Lausanne Covenant but who simply didn't agree with it.  In particular, I met delegates who essentially rejected this statement from the covenant,

"Yet those who reject Christ repudiate the joy of salvation and condemn themselves to eternal separation from God." 


What makes this so sad is that such individuals have adopted a dishonest strategy for being selected as delegates for the congress.  Whatever commitment they may have towards Christ, it apparently doesn't require the kind of scrupulous honesty that Christ calls us to.  They may find this to be a very small price to pay in order to get their voice heard, but I find it simply sad.  Participation in the Lausanne Movement is voluntary, and I believe that those who choose to be involved ought to do so with the utmost integrity.

1. Complaints

Of course, my biggest complaint of all was simply the fact that people were complaining so much.  Now, don't misunderstand me. It wasn't the majority by any stretch.  There wasn't a spirit of bitterness hanging over the convention center.  But I happened to be in situations in which I heard a fair amount of what complaining was happening.  Some complained that they weren't fairly represented, some complained that the "whole church" wasn't really there, some complained over issues of gender, some over issues of content, some over race and ethnicity, some over theology, and on and on.  And I kept thinking . . . really?!?! Why? Let me give you one example.

One night, I was coming into the main auditorium for the evening plenary session.  I was looking for a place to sit and found a table at which a friend was sitting. I walked to that table and asked to sit there.  They all said sure but, "you may not want to, we're [John] Piper-bashing over here." My heart dropped into my stomach as I sat down.  I thought, maybe I don't want to sit here. It simply amazed me that a group of Christians (it wasn't the whole table) would be engaged in something that they could describe as the "bashing" of another Christian at such a time and place as the 3rd Lausanne Congress.  I felt a little angry actually.  Why can't we just set aside this one moment in our lives in which we'll refrain from "bashing" each other?  It doesn't matter what you think of what Piper preached, it really doesn't.  I didn't think every sermon and presentation was a home run either. But I chose to trust that everyone came and shared out of a love for Christ.  I chose to trust God to superintend the proceedings of the congress.

So, I felt saddened by this.  I heard after the congress that during the final Holy Communion service that one small group of delegates had considered starting a protest to voice their dissatisfaction with things.  When I heard that, I just thanked God that He didn't let it happen.  I was, at that service, having a very important moment with God -- a moment that I believe will resonate with me for the rest of my life.  I believe that thousands around the room were having a similar encounter with God.  Such a protest would have been so damaging to me at that time.  Perhaps these individuals considered that and refrained for that reason.

Is it weird, am I so strange to choose to take a position of trust?  Is it naive and unchristian for me to assume that the Lausanne leadership really and truly wanted to honor Christ in the congress?  That God cared so much about the event that He was really involved in everything?  Because that is the position I took from the beginning to the end.  That doesn't mean that I wasn't exercising discernment throughout.  I was.  I was thinking critically about everything.  Not everything was great.  Some things were flawed.  The fingerprints of sinful humanity were on everything.  But so was the Spirit.  And so I wonder, why weren't people able to just put a moratorium on bitterness for those few days in Cape Town?

I suppose that someone might say that I'm saying this from my cozy position as a white, male Westerner -- a privileged one.  Maybe so.  But I will say that the vast majority of the complaining I have heard has come from my fellow white, male Westerners.  Sometimes they even complain "on behalf" of their non-white, non-Western friends.  How nice of them! But then I wonder if that simply represents a new kind of Western paternalism.

-----

Okay, my complaints have been lodged.  I hope you realize that while I do feel strongly about the things I've mentioned, my overall feeling about Cape Town 2010 was one of tremendous satisfaction.  I believe God worked in remarkable ways through the leadership and delegates to accomplish something truly historic and life-changing.  Also, please note that my "top 3" are not really complaints about the program of Cape Town 2010.  On the contrary, these are really disturbing observations that I believe God allowed me to make while interacting with the body of Christ in general in Cape Town.

Blessings!

Equilibrium: Revisited

I had just settled in to my seat on a South African Airways flight from Jo'burg to Cape Town.  I had my copy of Complete Nepali (excellent, by the way) in my hand, ready to be read.  Then Greg sat down.  Followed a bit later by Azim. Both men were my age.  Both native South Africans. Both 3rd generation Indian immigrants.  What followed was a lively conversation about Cape Town, life, world affairs.  

At one point, I said to my traveling companions, "I'm curious about your perspectives on things going on in the U.S.  What does it look like to a South African?"  There were some attempts to answer me, but eventually Greg explained, "You know, we all pretty much feel that Americans are arrogant.  That they have no idea about what's going on in the rest of the world.  So in response, a lot of times, we just don't care about what's going on in the United States."  The conversation continued, building on the theme that Americans must learn how to listen.

Greg told me of a time he was in the U.S. on business, consulting for an American company. One of the American's asked him if he knew what an "MP3" was.  Well, Greg was taken aback.  He felt offended that the American assumed that since Greg came from the majority world, that he knew very little about technology. "This guy didn't even know that actually MP3s were already an outdated form of technology!"

Let me paint a different kind of scenario:

A kind of coalition of churches is formed in an American city. The several churches represent several different ethno-linguistic groups.  There is property involved.  Electric bills.  Space and time negotiations.  Etc.  The assumed head of this coalition is the one American church.  Not that this was ever mutually agreed upon.  It just was.  It is simply assumed that since the property that is being used by all is legally owned by the American group, that they are the ones who have the final authority.  And, by the way, it isn't just the Americans who make this assumption.  Everyone else does as well.  At the end of the day, it appears that finances and power are woven together very tightly.  We should pause and consider if this is true and if it is as it should be . . . ok, now let's move on.

Then there is a meeting. The Americans have been struggling for some time, but recently some of its leaders have experiences a fresh vision and hope for the future.  They call the meeting to discuss their vision with the other churches – the immigrant churches.  Their exciting new plans are laid on the table.  The other churches are invited and challenged to get on board in prescribed ways.  The immigrants are encouraged to consider how they might make adjustments to their plans and ministries in order to prepare for growth.  In as sense, it sounds very exciting.

Except . . .

Here’s the thing, the immigrant churches have already been growing.  Some of them have planted daughter churches after only existing for a couple years themselves.  The growth is heavily through making new disciples.  They are already vibrant, hopeful, excited.  Beyond that, some of the leaders in those immigrant churches have accumulated very significant experience in evangelism, church planting, missions, and more.  As a matter of fact, from the perspective of a fly on the wall, the meetings seems very strange.  The one church that has not been growing, is the one leading, the one casting the vision, the one (indirectly) demanding to be listened to.  But the question is never raised, nor does it appear to enter the mind that the Americans should go to the immigrants and ask, “Will you teach us how to reach our neighbors?”

Greg said it.  Americans like me just have no idea how to listen. How to learn from the rest of the world.  How to be humble before them and recognize that our brothers and sisters in Christ from the majority world have been gifted and blessed by God in ways that we need.  That I need. 

So, these thoughts are very much on my mind today in Cape Town, South Africa.  Because of the people I’ve been talking with.  Because of what Greg said.  Because of what Paco said. And Niove.  Because I’ve been asked to lead a table and I want to listen.  Because of David Ruiz’s tremendous paper, “Cooperation in the Body of Christ: Towards a New Equilibrium”.  There is so much good stuff in his paper that trying to quote something or sum up something seems an injustice.  Just read it.  Pay careful attention to what he says about COMIBAM. It made me write in the margin of my paper, “What if the Cooperative Program was actually cooperative?” Some of you will understand that.

Take note of what Ruiz says about the best “motor” to empower and drive missions. Take note of the “high price” of cooperation.  Take note of this, “a united group starts with me.”

Together with Patrick Fung (who’s paper I review here), Ruiz will be presenting here in Cape Town on Sunday the 24^th.  I have a feeling that’s a plenary you’ll want to download the podcast for.

Blessings.

Must the Church Pursue a Global Equilibrium?

I always appreciate it when thinkers carefully examine unstated premises.  I always think about an episode of the West Wing in which one main character is repeatedly advised to handle reporters by "rejecting the premise" of their questions. I believe that Singaporean Church leader Patrick Fung's ability to do this -- to put the premise of his paper's title ("Partnering in the Body of Christ toward a New Global Equilibrium") under the microscope-- is what makes his contribution to the Lausanne Congress so valuable.

Fung's self-conscious article presents a very important question. Should a global equilibrium of power, resources, and influence be pursued at all?  Phillip Jenkins and others have done a good job of pointing out to us that the majority of Christians now live in the global south while most of the power and influence remains in Western countries.  But as I read Fung, I must acknowledge that this fact alone mustn't be the sole reason that we pursue a global equilibrium in the Church.  Rather, our goal is world evangelism, not equilibrium.  Writes Fung, "I am glad that LCWE stands for Lausanne Congress for World Evangelization and not Lausanne Congress for World Equilibrium."  This is an important point. We must not be saying "to the extent to which pursuing global equilibrium in the Church is the nice thing to do, we must do it." Rather we must say "to the extent to which pursuing a global equilibrium in the Church contributes to the extension of God's reign and fame among all peoples and nations, we must do it."

To this point, I want to say three things -- things that I think Fung is also saying.

First, we may speak of a geographic, financial, numerical, or intellectual "center of gravity" in the Church, but the only "center of gravity" that has any real meaning is the theological one -- Christ is the one and only "center of gravity" for the Church.

This, of course, isn't a point original to me, but rather comes from something I read in the Lausanne Theology Working Group paper.  Let me provide an extended quote here:

"We rejoice in the phenomenal growth of the church in the majority world of the global south, and for that reason we understand the intention of the statement that the 'centre of gravity' of world Christianity has shifted south.  However, we strongly discourage the further use of this term, for two reasons.  First, Christianity has no centre but Jesus Christ.  We are defined by no geographical centre, but only by our allegiance to the Lordship of Christ, and he is Lord of all the earth.  The 'centre', therefore, is wherever he is worshipped and obeyed. Secondly, any talk of a centre (other than Christ) undermines the fact that Christianity, even since the book of Acts, has always been fundamentally polycentric. Anywhere on earth can be a centre, and any centre can rapidly become peripheral.  The global nature of the church as 'one throughout the whole wide world' subverts the language of a centre--whether geographic, numerical, or missionary. Mission is from everywhere to everywhere."


Second, for the gospel to be the gospel, there is a need for a kind of global equilibrium in the Church.  This is because a full-orbed understanding of the gospel includes the good news that God is creating out of fragmented and broken humanity, one new humanity, the Church.

So there can be no true gospel and no true evangelization unless it includes the presentation of this new reconciled humanity.  And I sense a growing chorus of voices on this point.  It is here in Fung's article, "Christ has destroyed the barrier . . . has brought into being nothing less than a new, united human race . . . the message of reconciliation is to be lived out by God's new community, which the fragmented world needs to see." It is also in the Lausanne Theology Working Group paper, "It is important to see how this 'peace-making' work of the cross -- reconciling Jews and Gentiles, and creating on new humanity -- is not just a by-product of the gospel, but is of the essence of the gospel itself." It there in the words of Antoine Rutayisire who, when speaking of factors contributing to the Rwandan genocide of the 1990s, mourned the fact that conflicts between missionaries from different denominations "created more divisions and animosities among the people who did not see Christianity as a unifying factor but rather another colonial importation." It is, of course, in the Lausanne Covenant itself which states, "our disunity undermines our gospel of reconciliation" and the Manila Manifesto which affirms "the urgent need for churches, mission agencies and other Christian organizations to cooperate in evangelism and social action, repudiating competition and avoiding duplication." And more voices besides these could be cited.  Praise the Holy Spirit as He works to move us more and more to this point of common ground.

Third, for a global equilibrium to be built upon an a priori commitment to God's global mission, it will necessarily look different than conceptions of equilibrium that are based on a rather arbitrary sense of niceness, fairness, or democracy.

And I'm not meaning to be cute here, but Fung has raised a critical specific point that alludes to this larger one.  His specific point is this, "although a better state of equilibrium will avoid the tendency of dependency, the biblical concept of partnering in the body of Christ should be interdependence". Now, I can't tell you how tempted I am to chase that rabbit trail, but I will try to exercise a bit of self-control and simply suggest, in agreement with Fung, that it is unbiblical to hold up independence and autonomy as signs of spiritual maturity either for individuals, local churches, or national/regional churches.  The three (to four) self formula is fundamentally flawed if it cannot allow for the kind of permanent interdependence that the Bible calls for.

Now it is this Biblical interdependence that must become what we mean by equilibrium.  It is not that the Holy Spirit distributes the same gifts, history, resources, experiences, and knowledge to every person, church, and region in precisely the same ways so as to facilitate our human conception of fairness.  Rather, it is that the Holy Spirit distributes gifts as He wills for the common good (1 Cor. 12).  We are all supposed to be strong in some ways and weak in others.  For in this, we cannot but come together.  The real problem may not be that Western churches "have all the power, influence, scholarship and resources", but rather that we in the West have failed to recognize the richness in majority world Churches that we desperately need.  Likewise we fail to recognize value that lies outside our normal categories of assessing value.  So that if we continue to only think of equilibrium in terms of balancing money, influence, information, and the like then we will never achieve Biblical interdependence (i.e. equilibrium) that also calls us to value a whole range of other categories such as prayer, worship, persecutions, powerlessness, poverty, joy, and more.

From Collective Affirmations to Enduring Commitments: Lausanne Theology Discussion (2 of 7)

Welcome to the second of seven articles in response to the Lausanne Theology Working Group's paper on "The Whole Church Taking the Whole Gospel to the Whole World."  If you've not had a chance to read the paper, you can do so by following these links:

"The Whole Church Taking the Whole Gospel to the Whole World: Reflections of the Lausanne Theology Working Group" (condensed version)

"The Whole Church Taking the Whole Gospel to the Whole World: Reflections of the Lausanne Theology Working Group" (full version)

You can also read all seven parts of this series here.


__________
2. Regarding the "Whole Church"

The second section of the paper sets out answer "What is the Church?" Again, not a very easy thing to do, and yet, the answers provided are quite solid and helpful. I would like to highlight the subpoint on page 13-14 (full version) regarding the importance of recognizing several popular dichotomies as "false and damaging". I like this section and think it carries an important message for the Church.  However, I do want to point out that this desire to "move back behind" these dichotomies appears to be forgotten later in the paper.  In the epilogue of section three the paper is again setting up a dichotomy of "word and deed" which it specifically warned against previously (p. 33, item 1 in the long version).  That is admittedly frustrating for me to see because it gives me the feeling that the paper is not being presented in a fully univocal way -- which is particularly ironic given its emphasis on the wholeness of the Church.

Question #2 -- How do we really go about accomplishing something at Cape Town? How can we ensure that specific calls and charges and challenges that are made by speakers, presenters and others at the Congress translate into genuine and deep-seated  commitments that are held by most if not all the delegates?  I am very concerned that God will speak and issue many significant calls to His Church.  That we will agree to the truth and profundity of such calls. And that we will fly back into our respective fields of service only to be overwhelmed by the day-to-day concerns and local priorities of our ministries.  How do we truly get on the same page and commit ourselves to a shared vision, strategy, theological understanding, priorities, etc?  Or is this simply too much to ask?